11 Plastic & reconstructive studies in the library address this question.
“Recognition rates were 94.3% in the MR group and 82.0% in the CDU group (P = 0.008).”
Liu 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“Using different visualization settings, the spatial relationship of perforators to surrounding anatomical structures-especially the subcutaneous tissue and the Rectus Abdominis Muscle-can be understood more intuitively.”
Necker 2026 · Technical development
“The mean projection error is 10.3 ± 9.4 mm.”
Unger 2024 · Technical development · n: 21 participants
“In these sessions, surgeons discuss perforator anatomy and perforator selection strategies whilst comprehensively assessing the respective models.”
Necker 2024 · Technical note · n: 4 patients
Study designs: 1 randomized trial and 10 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Liu Y et al. · BMC Medicine · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“Recognition rates were 94.3% in the MR group and 82.0% in the CDU group (P = 0.008).”
P = 0.008
Necker FN et al. · Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“Using different visualization settings, the spatial relationship of perforators to surrounding anatomical structures-especially the subcutaneous tissue and the Rectus Abdominis Muscle-can be understood more intuitively.”
Unger M et al. · International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development · n: 21 participants
“The mean projection error is 10.3 ± 9.4 mm.”
10.3 ± 9.4 mm
Necker FN et al. · Surgical innovation · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note · n: 4 patients
“In these sessions, surgeons discuss perforator anatomy and perforator selection strategies whilst comprehensively assessing the respective models.”
Shpitser IM et al. · Stomatologiia · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study · n: 3 patients
“AR for microsurgical planning was performed in two inguinal regions and was 100% correlated with the results of high-frequency ultrasound, in the case of perforant vessels of the peroneal artery”
100%
Timóteo R et al. · Healthcare technology letters · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“The average time taken to mark each perforator is 7.7 ± 6.5 s, with an average absolute error of 6.8 ± 2.6 mm and an estimated average deviation of 3.6 ± 1.4 mm.”
7.7 ± 6.5 s
Masterton G et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note
“Although the authors did not use the HoloLens technology to make clinical decisions, they provide evidence of its accuracy and ease of use, offering a proof of concept.”
Seth I et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Case series · n: 5 patients
“AR technology shows promise in enhancing perforator identification efficiency and deepening understanding of perforator trajectories during preoperative planning.”
Allison B et al. · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality · 2020
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
Amini S, Kersten-Oertel M · Healthcare technology letters · 2019
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“This method can be quicker than the traditional way and eliminates sizer implants from the process.”
Perkins SL et al. · 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct) · 2017
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
All plastic & reconstructive studiesThis question across specialtiesBrowse the whole library
Summarises published research on VR/AR surgical planning across all platforms. Not product labelling. For Elucis indications see /elucis.
Intended for healthcare professionals.
Summaries and quotes describe each study's methods and the findings its authors report. They are not claims by Realize Medical and may contain errors: please read the original paper. Inclusion is not an endorsement of any product or use.